The present invention relates to improved systems for collecting, authenticating and tallying voter data. In particular, the present disclosure offers for consideration new electronic voting systems, methods and processes to overcome drawbacks of the prior art.
Voting is a cornerstone of democracy. In order to maintain the values of a free society, those participating in the process need to see and understand how their efforts matter. The presidential election of 2000 highlighted, to the public, many problems associated with mechanical voting systems. The election is remembered neither for any substantive policy nor historically significant political issues, rather for the now infamous controversy surrounding hanging chads and multiple recounts. Consequently, confidence in the ability of the government to administer elections was substantially eroded. Likewise, a new series of desiderata for the enfranchised were brought into the public awareness.
Many states took notice of the problems associated with mechanical voting systems and responded by examining and, in some instances, installing new types of units, including electronic voting machines. However, there are problems associated with the adoption and use of electronic voting machines. One such problem concerns the significant monetary investment. Since most jurisdictions use mechanical voting systems, the adoption of electronic voting machines requires the purchase of all new equipment. Economic efficiency militates against this solution. However, as the opportunity to use improved technology expands the range of choices, new solutions become feasible.
In addition to the significant costs associated with replacing mechanical voting systems and with the purchasing of electronic voting systems, concerns have been raised about the trustworthiness of electronic voting systems. A primary question raised is whether or not the electronic voting systems, or their suppliers, can be trusted to provide the technology needed to accurately record each voter's vote. Commercial interests, partisan politics and conflicts of interest ostensively exist to cloud these issues. Public confidence is an essential element and remains sorely lacking today, hence the need for improvements and better systems.
In fact, there were reports of alleged voting miscounts and voting fraud in connection with the use of the available machines for the 2004 election. The alleged incidents might be considered to be more egregious than those that occurred in 2000. For example, the applicable literature reflects the existence of reports alleging use of a vendor's electronic voting systems in an election prior to the system being certified by the state. Similarly, reports of tampering and unauthenticated, or untallied, votes were made.
The number of these negative reports coupled with the lack of “openness” of the technology (i.e., most, if not all, electronic voting systems use proprietary technology, which is not open to public examination), has led to a mistrust of the prior art electronic voting technology, and the specific electronic voting machines used. No sufficient degree of improvements has been forthcoming, leading to the conclusion that longstanding needs remain to be addressed.
One interesting response to stated concerns associated with the use of electronic voting systems, a private Australian company designed an Electronic Voting and Counting System, or eVACS, which is based on a set of specifications established by election officials. The software program code developed by the company was posted on the Internet for public review and evaluation. Members of the public responded and even identified bugs in the system. In addition, an independent company was hired by the election commission to audit the system. As post-election verification, a manual count was conducted to evaluate the system's accuracy.
Australia's eVACS included voting terminals consisting of a personal computer, with each voting terminal connected to a server at the same polling place via a secure local area network. A barcode, which does not identify the voter, is supplied by the voter and read by eVACS, before the voter is authorized to cast his vote. The voter “swipes” the barcode over a reader to reset the machine, enters his vote, and then “swipes” the barcode over the reader again to cast his vote.
As part of the eVACS design, the polling place server saves two copies of the votes cast using the voting terminals on separate discs. Each copy of the voting data is digitally signed and delivered independently to a central counting location. As a mechanism to determine whether the voting data has been tampered with, two different digital signatures are generated from the voting data. The first digital signature is generated from the voting data prior to its transmission to the central counting location, and the second digital signature is generated from the voting data once it is received at the central location.
The two digital signatures are compared to determine whether the voting data was altered. That is, if the data is altered after the first digital signature is generated, the second digital signature will be different from the first, which could indicate that the voting data was altered, or tampered with, prior to its receipt at the central counting location.
One shortcoming with this system is that the eVACS design used in Australia did not include a mechanism for allowing the voter to print, review and verify the ballot. The added expense associated with placing printers at each polling location was cited as one reason for not including this aspect in eVACS. The primary reason cited, however, was the expense associated with the added personnel needed to ensure that the paper receipts were deposited in a secure ballot box, and were not removed from the polling location, inadvertently or otherwise. This only serves to underscore the longstanding needs for a system that voters can understand and support.
The present disclosure addresses problems associated with existing mechanical and electronic voting systems, including those mentioned above, and provides a level of transparency and economic advantage. For this reason, it is believed to constitute progress in science and the useful acts, for which Letters Patent are hereby expressly requested.